Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
the same kind of technical and engineering knowledge (and the schooling to
provide these) is the same; classification of jobs and skills is roughly the same’
(p. 75), Bell necessarily contends that all societies are set on the same developmental
journey, one which must be followed en route to PIS.
Another, related difficulty with this is the problem Bell has in reconciling his
view that the productivity gains from the social structure (the ‘economising’ mode
of industrial societies) must be sustained to enable continued expansion of the
service sector which in turn generates a ‘sociologising’ or community consciousness.
Since he tells us that the latter will become a defining feature of PIS, and
with this an outlook sceptical of mere economic output, while simultaneously the
economy must expand to support PIS, we are left with a puzzle: are we still mired
in ‘industrial society’, even with multitudes of service workers, where the bottom
line is still ‘more for less’, or have we really moved beyond the ethos? In answer
one must note that we can scarcely be talking about a post-industrial society
when the continued existence and development of an automated and productive
industrial system is a requisite of all the post-industrial changes Bell envisages.
Post-industrial service society?
I am suspicious of a theory of post-industrialism that is so derivative of sociology
that was developed to conceive the major features of industrialism. I have also
expressed scepticism about PIS on grounds that there is no necessary reason why
more professional occupations – and all the informational activity that goes with
them – should represent a radically new society. However, there seem to me still
more decisive reasons for rejecting Bell’s depiction of ‘post-industrial society’.
These can be understood by closer analysis of what Bell takes to be the major
sign of PIS’s emergence, the growth of services. In what follows I shall demonstrate
the continuities with established relations that the expansion of services
represents, quite in contrast with Bell’s postulate that it indicates a break with the
past. As I do this, by reviewing what may be termed the Gershuny and Miles critique
after its most authoritative formulators, we shall see again that the concept of
‘post-industrial society’ is unsustainable.
To recapitulate: Bell cites the undeniable fact that the service sector of the
economy has expanded while industrial and agricultural sectors have declined as
prima facie evidence of the coming of ‘post-industrialism’. Logically, it seems
clear that, with services continuing to grow, and within services professional
occupations expanding especially fast, provided sufficient wealth can be generated
from productivity increases in agriculture and industry due to efficiency
increases, ultimately almost everyone will find employment in services. So long
as wealth is forthcoming from the other two sectors, there is, in principle at
least, no end to service expansion since people will constantly dream of ways
of spending their wealth (which stimulates service employment), while the
service occupations that are created, being people-orientated, are insulated
from automation. This is certainly the conclusion Bell draws from his historical
review: he cites figures which show that in 1947 over half the United States’
46